RUGBY REFORMS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 31, 30 October 1937, Page 16

RUGBY REFORMS

THE PENALTY TRY ' NEW DEFIN1TI0N OF TACKLE BOARD'S ALTERAT1GNS Several alterations of interest have been made to the Rugby rules by the International Board, the most important being amendments to the definition of a tackle and to the law relating to the awarding of a penalty try. A tackle was h|therto defined as follows — A tackle occurs when the holder of the ball in the field of play is held by one or more players of the opposing team, or there is a moment when he cannot pass or play the ball. Now, after the word "team," there has been inserted: "so that while he is so held the ball comes in contact with the ground." .A penalty try henceforth will always be awarded between the posts and not, as in the past, opposite the spot where the offence for which it was given was committed. This means that the side penalised will almost certainly lose five points, instead of a possible five, An Improvement The definition of a tackle, one of the most difficult achievements imaginable, has surely improved, stated an English writer in. commenting on the new rules. Foul play, which deserves to be punished if only because it frequently spoils and interrupts the cleverer periods of manoeuvre, might well have been dealt with in a more exhaustive manner, but there is much for the view that legislation of itself accompli'shes comparatively little if the moral sense is not there. One welcofiies none the less the alternation in the law affecting that rare event, the penalty try. Isow, if such a try is awarded by some brave and drastic official, there should occur the maximum punishment of five points, for the place-kick at goal must be taken from' in front of the posts. This, it is to be feared, adds to the responsibility of the referee, but as in 99 cases out of 100 there is no excuse for the "unfair play ,or unlawful "interference of the defehding team," the risk of official abuse may well be taken. In some cases it would not be too much if the wilful obstructionist were asked to remove himself entirely from the field of play. The same might be said of the players who persistently take advantage of a referee's concentration upon the scrummage to line up well in front of £he scrummage on the referee's blind side, Such conduct makes a mockery in good scrummaging and heeling. An effort also has been made to. remove another source of aggravation, always open to heated argument, when two opposing players set off in pursuit of a rolling ball. The unceremonious pushing over of a man stooping to pick up the ball has appeared to many people grossly unfair, in spite of the law enabiing it to be done. It is now an offence to do so, and no reasonable person should be sorry for the change. Last, but not least, an effort has been made — how successfully remains to be seen— to clarify the law which attempts to decide when the ball is fairly in the scrummage. This is one of the sore points of Rugby football, infinitely more tipklish and more difBcult to stop than the depredations of the marauding forward who is only a forward in narae. One strongly suspects that only the players can solve it. These, then, are some of the things which are likely to affect. Rugby football in the season 1937-38. The prospects of the clubs, a more pleasant but- almost equally obscure subject at the moment, belong, as it were, to another story. Conference in South Africa The same writer refers to the decision of the International Board to invite representatives of the Domin!ions to attend a conference to be held in South Africa during the British team's tour of that country in 1938, with the object of securing improvements so far as the rules of the game are concerned. Among the subjects likely to be discussed, he states, will be the New Zealand practice — only occasional, one believes — of allowing substitutes for injured players; the law, favoured by most of the Dominions, that makes kicking to touch advantageous only from the defending side's twenty-five, and the, much-de-bated question of who should put the ball into the scrummage and how. The winging forward (New Zealand style) still is not nailed down and beyond emergence from his coffin, though Mr. Meredith readily met tlie British objections when the lastrNew Zealand tour opened in this country. Almost needless to say, the British unions never will recognise the extra — and to them entirely bogus — scrummage half-back. They have quite enough trouble with their own scrummage half-backs and winging forwards (British style). Nor can one imagine their introduciiig substitutes for casualties into. their own game. They might conceivably be more amendable to the law governing kicking to touch, though that again is not a probability by any means. This may sound very unbending and insular, but in the light of what has occurred recently it would be unfair to call the home legislators die-hards or last-ditches. At Edinburgh last March the International Board, though they boggled at the idea of reducing the value of a dropped goal froril 4 to 3 points— a reduction which certainly would not have pleased everybody— made several importanl modifications in the laws and set out to clarify others. Clarification can be just as effective as alteration in some cases, for, as the game develops, the task of the referee tends to become more and more ditficult. For that reason one ventured at the time to write with mild indignation of the official re>»}of to referees responsible for the cpnduct of international matches when a strorig word or two to the players themselves svp.uid have) hee»] more jto the point. «